September 28, 2011

"... and then listening as a male colleague offers the same thought or suggestion minutes later to great acclaim. The first time it happens, she feels slightly foolish and is a little unsettled. Did I say that out loud or just in my head? Maybe he made the point better than I did. The second time it happens, she gets frustrated. The third time, she gets angry."

There are often reasons someone is able to sell an idea more effectively, or better tuned to someone's objections, or even knowingly based on something they just heard that they think is a good idea they want more consideration of.

I'm not sure it's even that big a deal, 99% of the time. Leadership is not about knowing the right thing to do, entirely from one's own thinking, but rather being mature enough to recognize good ideas from others as well.

If I was at a meeting, and heard the same idea twice, only more well proposed the second time, and the first person to offer it was visibly upset that their idea was being supported, I would find that petty. If they instead chimed in with a positive reinforcement of their idea, that would look good.

Obama's got no problem taking advice from women. It's his lame 'sweetie' handling of those who aren't fawning over him that bugs (smart) women.

That said, Barry has a history of dealing with women improperly. Remember when he called a reporter "Sweetie"? It was reported that this was not out of charachter for Barry. Of course, that was quickly dismissed because he's well....

I don't have anything to say about whatever it is that Amy Sullivan said, but you know what I've noticed? A lot of times, a man can say the exact same thing that a woman has already said, and get all the credit for it.

It's because he was raised, and still is, a Muslim, a dogma that treats women as cattle. Why do you think he has appointed so many dykes to important positions (Napolitano, Kagen, Sotomayor, Clinton)? He has a problem w/ females in authority, and figures that a dyke gets around that.

When he is thrown out of office for ineligibility (not natural born, since he was born British, of a British subject father) all of his Marxist dyke appointments will be declared null and void.

I used to wait tables in the south, and still retain that habit of calling people sweetie/honey/baby every now and then. When Candidate Obama did that, I thought that it was kind of cute- I'd never known before that he also was a former waitress from a southern restaurant. I felt like we had something in common.

Obama accreted an inner circle of men and in response his (righteously) affronted women staffers coagulated into a group.

The class action attitude isn't the cause of the problem. The women are probably completely right that Obama and Obama's senior staff were old-boy-network kind of guys. (Contrast to George W. Bush and his team.)

What anyone needs to move upward in a politicized executive environment is a mentor. It's all about the individual connection. Forming an aggrieved group gets you no where.

lyssa's comment re waitress endearments is right on the mark--seems to be a cultural thing in the south where you get the plate lunch special--I never thought less of the wait staff and rather enjoyed it, actually--but then I am old sexist pig.

WV: pacesti (what strippers wear on one nipple to stay legal) how does WV know this stuff

lyssalovelyredhead said...---------------The context here is not about running law firms or some low tier lawyer experiences or the president of America retaining habits from his waiting table days calling women sweetie.

This is about the working environment in a male dominated WH, the center of power for the US government whose primary occupant had no leadership skills to harness the skills of his female advisers nor deal with their complaints of exclusion. What is so difficult to understand about that? Going after those women is like accusing the rape victim of wearing a short skirt and asking for it. Get real.

You ordered the special and he brought you the arugula salad. He comes late for his shift and sometimes skips it entirely to go get his hair done. He bitches about your tips, and horns in on your conversation.

pm317, is your entire 8:38 comment addressed to me? (you quoted me, but didn't actually put down the quote, so I'm not sure.)

If it is, I think that you really need to "get real" yourself. I haven't gone after any of these women. She (Ms. Sullivan) said that it has happened to nearly every professional woman; I said that it has not happened to me, so I'm somewhat skeptical of that assertion. Then I commented that I thought the "sweetie" flap was cute because I do it sometimes, and made a hilarious gender-bending joke about Obama having formerly been a waitress.

Where on earth did you get the idea that I'm "going after" anyone? Based on my personal observations, it seems more likely than not that the women saying that they have been mistreated are whining about nothing, but I certainly make no claim to know anything about what actually happened.

Maybe you can't bring in a throng of academic women with no experience in the real world and expect them to step up. Maybe they have no idea of how to make their points since in the worlds they inhabit the men fall over themselves to give them the intellectual right of way. Maybe they are not strong enough personalities to be in the positions they are in. Maybe they have been promoted way above their heads. Maybe being pissed off is not a winning strategy.

Yea, me too - 25 years of business meetings and I've never seen it once. I guess I could have been blind to it, but I doubt it. My top key people have always been dominated by women who proved themselves through action, but still I notice they have a higher sensitivity to being dissed or even pushed hard.

The guys rarely if ever complain about being maltreated or unappreciated, even when they are. The women usually go there first in the face of either failure or frustration.

I just rack it up to basic differences between the sexes. Guys just have different weaknesses, like just generally getting less work done, especially the rote boring kind. Men are not good at boring - they just shut down, while women tend to plow though it in a way that leaves us men thankful and in awe. It may sound sexist, but I'm just describing what is obvious I think.

Such attitudes towards women as Obama is being accused of holding are typical for lefties. One of the dirty little open secrets of the entire Vietnam-era "free speech" and anti-war" movements was that the male leaders of the various organizations that were at the core of these movements--from Mario Savio to the Weathermen to the Black Panthers--were "sexist" to the core and treated female members as nothing but sex objects, tea-makers and stamp-licking letter stuffers. David Horowitz, who saw all of this "up close and personal" has written eloquently about the hypocrisy of the left in their displayed attitudes towards the women in their ranks and toward women in general.

Riffing off JAC's and Lyssa's observations, I would suggest this is not a sexist thing, its a bureaucratic issue--As long as we are throwing out anecdotal information, I have been in public health, dominated by women, where the women in the group would sign up to whatever the woman director would say--and in male dominated organizations, eg the Joint Staff, men sign up to whatever the guy with most stars on his collar says.

You may be right, JAC, but the other side of the coin is that she doesn't consider that this happens to men as well. Certainly, there may be some sexism, but in many cases, it's just a question of visibility and status wholly unrelated to gender.

And nearly every man has had the same experience. Communication is a tricky thing. Sometimes a thought makes perfect sense in your head and you express it in a way that is clear to you, but not to everyone else. And your expressed thought sets of a spark in someone else and then they do a better job communicating it.

I suggest this is because you've likely been dwelling on that thought for awhile, and you don't communicate the heart of the idea, but rather communicate what has been going on in your mind as you try to synthesize the various thoughts you've been waiting to offer up.

But the other person, they haven't been dwelling on the same thing as you, so your communication sparked the idea to come forth in its most essential form from your coworker. Ironically, if what you care about is the idea being done, because it was presumably a good one, then you should be pleased. If all you care about is getting credit you have reason to be upset.

Good leadership is inspiring other people to (think they have thought up all the)great ideas that they go and implement. Bad leadership is wanting to do everything and get all the credit.

I believe her that this has happened to her and at least one other woman she knows. But how did she find out that this has happened to nearly every professional woman?

It's the Malcolm Gladwell approach to research. As Althouse has also noted many times, see every "trend" story in the NY Times. Strenuous fact checking requires three instances of a phenomenon to establish it as ubiquitous (the author can be one of the three sources).

Isn't this pretty much the nature of women to always find something to complain about?

They used to complain that they weren't in positions of power at the White House.

Now they have the positions, and they complain about nobody listening to them.

And if Obama were to start listening, they'd find something else to complain about like he didn't mention their name enough at press conferences or he didn't follow the advise right or his buddy the Sec Def looked at them the wrong way.

And that they keep the situation room too cold - goodness, there is always a complaint about the room or car temperature.

The complaints will never diminish, only the granularity of the complaint.

Steve Sailer reports that same sex households account for 0.55% of all American households! The great gay marriage debate has been over 0.55% of the populace! And gay marriage lost 0-31 in actual elections.

But, the hell with democracy when you are convinced that you are dealing with bigots. You can't allow bigots to actually have a role in a democracy.

Unlike the black vote, which the Dems have enslaved for a couple generations, there are independent women and Hispanics. This shit will hurt him. I don't know if it will hurt him enough to lose, but it's significant. Unlike most of the analysis we read.

lyssalovelyredhead said...-----------that is fine, about relating your personal experience. What I was trying to highlight was the seriousness of the complaints from women working for this president. I don't want their concerns minimized.

Yeah, sure, some of you are quibbling about her language usage, 'nearly every professional woman'.. But it happens more often than not and higher the stakes, higher the competition. But it is not a fair competition because the rules are setup such that women can be easily excluded if they don't do things that the men do. So to be competitive, we all have to golf, play basketball or smoke cigars to blend in, essentially behave and become like men. Is that the way it should be?

It happens to everyone. Women just blame is on gender rather than something else. In my experience, it has to do with seniority or perceived competence. It's much easier to blame men that yourself though.

How about sitting in a meeting, offering a suggestion, having it turned down, have an ass kisser who never otherwise actually does anything, offer a stupid suggestion and have it get accepted. THEN two months later, everyone realizes the suggestion was idiotic and in a meeting, the manager offers up your original idea and everyone thinks it's brilliant.

Years ago, I worked with a Chinese women who was brilliant, but never rocked the boat. This happened to both of us repeatedly on a project. Finally, at one meeting, after the product manager announced we were switching back to the sensible method, she blurted out, "that's what we suggested three months ago!" Funny thing is, everyone else was too busy patting themselves on the back to hear her (no joke, they really were.)

Point is that there are jerk, no nothing, managers everywhere. Most are MBAs with little relevant experience and most are best at getting promoted. Welcome to the real world.

pm317, suppose there are two candidates for an executive position at a large corporation. Their qualities, talents, skills, and experience are identical, and each is perfect for the job. Yet one is a man, and the other is a woman.

Look how long it took us to start bitching about that. It's gone on forever, and we didn't notice until we did as a reply to women bitching about how they are portrayed. Just like men have "mid-life crises", but women "get their groove on and bloom."

Men just naturally take shit, it's what we do. Of course, now we are starting to bitch as the culture succeeds in feminizing us along with everything else.

What Ambrose said very early in the thread. And contrary to what Dustin said, the second time the idea was presented in the same meeting it need not have been better proposed. There's something going on in the dynamic of groups where the members of the group seem to expect that the best ideas will come from just one or two or three people in the room. The trick is not to torpedo your own career before becoming one of those people.

Sometimes walls are torn down and we do not like what we see on the other side. It is not as we expected. It is not as convivial as we believed it to be. All this time we thought the old boys met at the club and instantly did business together. It never crossed our minds that they went to the club to eat and work out and that mostly they didn't like each other.

Or maybe we had great ideas like "lets build a beautiful car and make it here in the US and sell it cheaply." And everybody yawned because ideas are a dime a dozen. Ideas that work are something else.

I've also known many men who are a pleasure to work with and are real team players.

However, in my profession being a team player wasn't really a big plus for anyone /wink. So being dissed or ignored by one of the males in the office or in the group wasn't a source of boohoo they don't like me. It was more like thinking silently with a lipsticked smile.."really? Watch me get you bud. Eat my dust!"

Generally, when in a work situation, I prefer men. They are just easier to communicate with. Women are difficult and emotional. Too much work.

As someone said it could be an insider versus outsider situation, however Obama as the LEADER of the group should have been able to recognize this situation and try to include everyone.

The women are probably pissed off because the realize that they are just the tokens in the room.

The facts are: when a consultant role woman works for days and nights to develop a leadership strategy and presents it clearly to the Chairman of the organization it is not recognized... until a man in the room pops up and says the same thing whereupon it is affirmed as company policy by unanimous consent because of its utter brilliance.

In fact she is now in trouble with the boys who are working for the next promotion.

It is like Capt. Joe Rochefort almost single handedly breaking the Japanese naval Code leading to the most important Naval victory in the history of warfare...and his reward was being demoted and transferred out by jealous and inept superiors in DC.

That was too much credit to be given to go to a maverick like Rochefort.

Women with Joe Rochefort's type of talents are treated that way when they are not mavericks, but just female.

What do you think? Look at the number of women CEOs in the US and elsewhere. This is the only developed country that has not produced a female president. It has set an example on several different fronts for the world and I find it perplexing that the number of women in the higher rungs of power is so few.

I think the feminist movement of the 60s blurred the ultimate objective of equality. It brought to women everyday self-sufficiency and independence but also brought with it a complacency about more meaningful accomplishments.

I think the complacency takes the form of deluding some women like Ann to think they have already arrived or to think they are being choosy when they say 'not this woman' but the real choice is not there at all because there are not enough women. The glass ceiling here is harder to crack than it is in other parts of the world where it has happened accidentally or by forethought and then taken root.

But it happens more often than not and higher the stakes, higher the competition.

Does it happen? I'm sure it does. But it certainly doesn't happen more often then not, as in, more than 50% of the time. It happens every once in a while, at best.

But it is not a fair competition because the rules are setup such that women can be easily excluded if they don't do things that the men do. So to be competitive, we all have to golf, play basketball or smoke cigars to blend in, essentially behave and become like men. Is that the way it should be?

There are very few people as uninterested in sports as I am, but no, it doesn't bother me one bit that people have hobbies like sports and cigars, and that they are more interested in people who share their hobbies. Women are just as able to participate in events involving sports and cigars as men; it strikes me as pretty sexist to presume that they are somehow less able to do so, or that there is "male behavior" (that women have to copy) verses "female behavior" (whatever that even means), rather than just behavior that males and females can engage in.

If she hadn't been drooling over The Lightworker as a Sort Of God 4 years ago, Ms Sullivan might have noticed he wrote a whole book inspired by the father who abandoned him and whom he only met briefly twice, but ignored the mother who took care of him and dismissed the grandmother who raised him and gave him a world of privilege as a "typical white person".

pm317, odds are strong that the woman in my hypothetical will get the job.

The low percentage of female CEOs and our lack of a historic female POTUS is not germaine. You said that "it is not a fair competition because the rules are setup such that women can be easily excluded if they don't do things that the men do. So to be competitive, we all have to golf, play basketball or smoke cigars to blend in, essentially behave and become like men." My point is that while those probably are disadvantages for most women (and some men), the advantages to the company of hiring the woman rather than the man are overwhelming. Give me the qualified minority female every time. Sorry, white guys; I've got the EEOC to think about.

I used to work at a job which was more than half women. It was a large company with a lot of rules and procedures, and one of them was that to get to the next promotional level, you had to study for and pass a number of tests.

I worked with several women who were very smart and capable, and multiple managers (all male, I think) suggested over and over that these women take the tests and move up. They refused outright, over and over again, and acted insulted by the suggestion.

When a male was promoted, I heard the same women sarcastically commenting about it that "Well, of course, he has a penis."

(I did take the tests. And I was promoted.)

Anytime I hear women complaining about this sort of thing, I try to consider their complaints, but I can't help but think of these women I used to work with.

@ Bob Ellison the advantages to the company of hiring the woman rather than the man are overwhelming.

My point is that those advantages manifest only up to a level in the management hierarchy. After that it is still mostly old boys network. Higher the stakes, higher the competition and unwritten rules favor one over the other. I could give you anecdotal evidence from my own experiences but that is irrelevant.

Few executives are going to refuse to promote a woman who they think is gonna help them get the job done, make money and help them advance. Sure there are some weak men who may fear or just dislike women, but nobody, including other men, want to be working for that kind of man anyway.

I think most male executives would prefer to have a smart effective woman rather than a man working next to them if other things were equal, but they usually aren't. Women are often harder to work with, and both men and women know this, and the ones who are make it harder for the rest.

This is true of other minority complaints too. The minority blames the majority for what their minority fellows have done to their image.

What do you think? Look at the number of women CEOs in the US and elsewhere. This is the only developed country that has not produced a female president. It has set an example on several different fronts for the world and I find it perplexing that the number of women in the higher rungs of power is so few.

pm317--would not that dependent of the educations, skills, and demonstrated performance of the candidates? One would hope that those things would be in the primary list of credentials. Or, are you trying to make another point?

"That is irrelevant. Show me women, and other minorities doing the same thing to make your case."

The #2 and #3 at my company are women and they did the same thing, and don't know golf or other sports. In fact, most successful women executives and the men too who I meet are like that. The golfing, sports-obsessed executive is a caricature, and not the majority in general business. Most are the opposite they were not jocks in school, they were "nerds" or even "heads", because that's where the brains lived. They were always on equal footing with the women they knew most of their life.

Why do women assume this is a "woman problem" ? I assure you, plenty of guys have experienced this as well.In fact I seem to remember a commercial from a few years back (I think it was for staples) where one guy says what he thinks should be done to fix the office problems, the boss or alpha male repeats the suggestion verbatim and everyone cheers and says what a good idea it was.That is a common experience for men as well as women in the office. Welcome to equality ladies.

Despite much evidence to the contrary of the notion that women just can't get a break, you keep moving the goalposts. The Professor's post was about women not getting credit for what they say in meetings. Then you made it a general thing, where the rules are stacked against women.

I guess you've conceded my argument about promotions, so now it's the "glass ceiling", because, as you say, "Higher the stakes, higher the competition and unwritten rules favor one over the other." You don't provide even anecdotal evidence, and I'd guess that you would find a new way to dismiss contrary anecdotal evidence, like the fact that HP is probably about to name Meg Whitman, a proven business leader, CEO. bagoh20 has offered further anecdotal evidence that looks pretty devastating.

Margaret Thatcher got thrown out of her party ... after a dozen years of success at 10 Downing Street; BECAUSE, in collusion with the BCC, and dishonest daily newspapers ... there was a concerted effort to call all the fiscally conservative and responsible politicians in Brittan, LOONIES.

The truth is now known. In France, Sarkozy is on skids. And, Merkel is holding on for her dear life ... pretty much knowing "her team" won't do a Margaret Thatcher exit on her head. Because they'd all face early elections.

So, some women get there.

And, then they crap out, as do men.

While Meryl Streep, if she walks away with an Oscar ... will show you something about hollywood that will shock and surprise.

It's a beginning.

We're not involved with "litmus tests" in this country anymore! The idea that the Christian Churches are gonna be winning the field, ahead, is ridiculous.

The rout, of course, will happen in Europe, first.

What would be Obama's mistake?

Giving the Europeans money to bail out their failed bankers and banks. Whereas dithering may be just the ticket to save him. It also drives the right nuts!

Office dynamics are just that: dynamic. To attribute one incident to a mere uncorroborated perception of prejudice is sheer folly. My experience in Big Corp has always been a fluid one. Shit changes, rapidly. Maybe not big earth-shaking changes on a daily basis, but enough subtle shifts that if you take notice you'll get better at being noticed.

There was likely a combination of reasons why your idea was not noticed or credited the first time. It's on you to figure out how to become a better communicator. Instead of bitching about it, start by looking in the mirror and asking yourself what part you had in the whole sorry episode.

To say they didn't recognize your brilliance because you're a woman is not only whiny but incredibly lazy.

DBQ has it right. I deal with women on a daily basis in my industry and most of them are super performers, outstanding in every way. We are not, however, in one of these bullshit corporate environments where politics rule, where every ass kiss is important, where half the time is spent in meetings sharing ideas.

I think feminism has trained women to see any personal failure they might have on some larger gender-driven problem. This keeps them from seeing the reality of a situation. All men know the trauma of telling a joke that falls flat, or trying to talk to a boss who doesn't listen, or trying to talk to a woman who is interested in someone else.

But we don't attribute it to our status as men.

We just try to improve our timing, or our sentence structure, or our reading of the situation.

I think feminism in many ways has thrown women off the truth and is holding them back.

You just have to get better at communicating. Whining just makes people even less willing to listen to you, and makes the rest of people wish you didn't exist at all.

So I don't advise whining.

I just think individuals have to be willing to suffer when they speak in a public place. Chances are you won't be heard.

Think of Santorum or the others on the podium at the Republican debates. Think of Thad McCotter who couldn't even get up there. Seven of those people are going to fail. Will they attribute it to race, class, and gender, or just face the fact that they weren't as compelling as someone else?

Curious George? facts? you want facts? I don have no stinkin facts, but by god I have opinions.

Seems to me that there was a woman, a democrat, that ran for president recently, and had the initial endorsement of even the "august" NYT--ahhh, but she was upended by someone with more melanine content, and who famously opined that Ms Clinton was "likable enough." Looks like liberal democrats might have a bit more baggage than conservative republicans--but as always YMMV

Once as a young newspaper editor, I complained to a senior editor that it wasn't clear what my authority was. He replied, "Authority is for those who take it." I never made that complaint again--and never had any reason to make it.

"This is the only developed country that has not produced a female president."

I remember Patricia Schroeder's run for the Democratic nomination back whenever. After finishing fifth in some caucus, in a party that is majority female, she dropped out. She stood there crying and blaming her loss on the fact that America wasn't ready for a woman president.

Jesse Jackson did the same thing, though blaming his loss on his race.

The point is not about whether this happens to beta males as well as females, or whether she should stick up for herself more, or whether a grave injustice has been perpetrated, and she's been stifled in her career mobility.

The point is whether Obama is dumb enough to listen only to the guy who sells himself best, or smart enough to benefit from the smart but unassertive person next to him.

At most meetings, the main thing I think about is: when is this meeting going to be over?

And.....

Is there a purpose to this. Why are we wasting our time. Didn't we just have a meeting on this same crappola last month. Why does everyone never have anything new to offer. There goes whatshisname bloviating again. Shut up shut up shut up. What an asshole. God these donuts suck. I wonder what I should make for dinner tonight. I hope they have some fresh fish at the market. How long before this is over. I need to make some portfolio review appointments and a bunch of other phone calls. What a waste of time, I could be making money. Geeze not this stuff yet again!!

When SOS (sub optimal stuff) happens, men who want to maintain or advance in status in their group are expected to joke about it. Women, in their groups, are expected to complain. If we really want to be able to move beyond affirmative action, that needs to stop.

Problem is: when we play these women are (generally) like this, men are generally like this, stereotypes or theories, you miss all the individuals who aren't built like that.

You have aggressive, competitive women of worth. You have collorative, well organized men too.

What scares me most about this educational theory of same-sex classrooms? As a girl, getting stuck in a 'girls classroom', where we all collaborate, don't compete, and learn groupie group "softer" ways of thinking, not doing...

That's not me. THey'd better have some kind of "opt out" mixed classrooms for the kids who don't fit those molds, is all I'm saying...

I think a lot of women in the power positions today, didn't get there necessarily by working their ways up, but via affirmative action -- big promotions too soon because of their womanness.

They do a dis-service to the women coming up, wanting to compete on their merits, but being summarily dismissed based on their looks.

(Trust me: men form an opinion on an attractive 20-something too, and if you don't have olderbrothers/richdaddy, you get "tested" more than the a.a. women already in power or the ones who come in on their powerful connections.)

A.A. (affirmative action) doesn't help anyone in the long run... That's why I'm wary of calls that "We need more women in the upper roles." Nope. We need qualified, exceptional people who want to work alongside the same, period.

(Don't think the A.A. women are threatened by others coming up on their own merits? Think again...)

I do agree though -- Michelle Obama is wasting her education and talents right now, for whatever reason, whether to put Barry's career first, or because she thought she'd do better hitching herself to his star.

Does this say something about him, and them? Yep. Just like their personal/career roles are pretty indicative of who and how the Clinton's "made it" too...

Would have been better had both women -- H + M -- settled for less in, but have relied on working their own ways up, if you ask me...

Mary, your comments are interesting. Can you expound on this one? "(To me, that's the worst part of the "men are the victims today" routine. They're adopting the wrong tactics.)" I don't fully understand it; it seems like a pithy thing that I should try to grok.

BTW, I've had legal help from perhaps a dozen people over the years. I'd describe four of the attorneys involved as outstanding. One of them, and the other eight, were men.

Don't think the A.A. women are threatened by others coming up on their own merits? Think again.

And vice versa. The women who made it on their own merits resent the AA women who are not up to the job.

Those are the ones who give us all (women) a bad name in the professional organization. Generally, they are the whiners in the crowd. They are diversity hires for political reasons and are looked upon with disdain by the men who don't get a break. They then make the men resentful of all the women because men can't seem to see past the boobs. (kidding...sort of)

We had this discussion in the long thread about Affirmative Action in the Wisconsin educational system.

Mary said: What scares me most about this educational theory of same-sex classrooms? As a girl, getting stuck in a 'girls classroom', where we all collaborate, don't compete, and learn groupie group "softer" ways of thinking, not doing...

That's not me. THey'd better have some kind of "opt out" mixed classrooms for the kids who don't fit those molds, is all I'm saying...

I've thought the same thing. I can see a lot of benefits to same-sex education, but, personally, I think that I would have slit my wrists if I'd have had to sit through day after day of all-girl classrooms.

Mary: FYI, you can make a whole lot more money if you are not supporting a bunch of people sitting around in meetings all day, or hr departments or AA hires or whining cohorts of any type. More risk but lots more reward.

What if it were shown that same-sex education was unequal in it's results. In other words, what if boys benefited from it far more greatly than girls? Just a hypothetical, but even if it were shown as conclusively as possible by multiple studies, I'm willing to be that if that were the case, nobody would be in a rush to set up mandatory same-sex education.

Mind you, I'm not suggesting it doesn't benefit the girls, just that the improvement for the boys would be far greater...hypothetically.

but, personally, I think that I would have slit my wrists if I'd have had to sit through day after day of all-girl classrooms.

LOL!!!

Me too. I can't imagine a worse situation. I worked at one time in an all woman business situation. Never ever again. I would far prefer to work with men. Much easier to understand, clearer communication.....NO DRAMA.

Bob Ellison said: Can you expound on this one? "(To me, that's the worst part of the "men are the victims today" routine. They're adopting the wrong tactics.)"

I'm not Mary, but I've had similar thoughts, so I'll give my view. I see a lot of "men's rights" folks who speak in very, very broad generalities about women- they are all only after money, they will all trap you to get pregnant, never trust them, never get married, they only care about your wallet, every story where a male had something bad happen to him is the "system"'s fault, every child support court is biased against him, every woman (or minority) is always going to get the benefit over him (see, e.g., ShoutingThomas).

There seems to be a wide attitude that men should just "fuck 'em and drop 'em", without taking any responsbility themselves, and this attitude that no man can catch a break. It's as annoying from men as the similar ones are from women. (i.e., I think both parties should be responsible in their sex lives, including only having sex with people who they can trust.)

Anyway, I sympathize with a lot of the child support/men's rights issues (though I've seen the draconian child support laws applied in unfair ways to women, too, including a couple of clients of mine- it's more a function of draconian laws that tend to impact men more than just anti-men laws). And I don't deny at all that there are some terrible women out there (and terrible men). But listening to men talk about it is simply obnoxious and stupid. There are plenty of good men out there- you should be a little bit choosy, but they are there. It's the same for women. These people repeating the "No American man should ever get married" line of crap aren't doing anyone any favors.

What if it were shown that same-sex education was unequal in it's results.

What if instead of grouping us by body parts, we are put into classroom settings that are compatible with our learning abilities, interests and personality profile types.

The classrooms might still be grouped by sex in some cases, but you would find that the mixed classrooms of boy/girl in the sciences and math arenas would be highly effective. You would have a group of students with like minds and like abilities who are interested in the subjects. Who cares if there are more boys and less girls in those classes!

"To me, that's the worst part of the "men are the victims today" routine. They're adopting the wrong tactics."

Those who think boys/men need affirmative action to help them get into college and compete. How about a good swift kick in the ass, instead, to those who don't do their homework, don't take the tests seriously, etc. We can say "poor fellas", or work to get done what needs to get done to get them in.

Those men, who simply see women's affirmative action -- in many fields, like engineering -- as holding them back, and instead of working harder and persevering (as women have managed to do for years, non AA or coddle professional women that is) they whine and complain instead, and blame their lot fully on women. I agree, it sucks to be passed over to the less qualified based on a personal characteristic -- but once you give up because the system is always pitted against you... it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Those men, and women, who whine that boys can't play outside, no recess, all female teachers (plenty of tough competitive women teachers too, no?)... instead of getting them out after school, on weekends, roughhousing with them OUTSIDE of school ... we want to get more Male role models in the school, and segregate them from girls (some who are competitive and meritorious and might indeed give them a run for their money...)

Adopting the "whiny victim, pity me" tactics that have worked for some groups in the past... well that seems to just give up the game, if you ask me.

There are open routes, other ways, and yes, if you're willing to struggle, you CAN mind a better place for me. Plenty here, so if you don't like the environment you're allegedly locked into, BREAK OUT (or make a plan to), don't just stay there wallowing in pity and complaining until others make changes that make your own life better.

That's just adopting the wrong tactics. Plus, it takes less of the power out of man's hands, in the end. Hth.

----------------"FYI, you can make a whole lot more money if you are not supporting a bunch of people... More risk but lots more reward."

Agreed. In the long run. But in the short term, sometimes, especially if you don't have the capital of your own yet, there is struggle at first, pay cuts involved, instability and insecurity at first when you're getting the "fully independent" thing up and running. No company cars, nor guaranteed salaries. But yes, if you can stick with it, I'm very much in agreement w/you there.

Any man who has been a 2Lt in the military has had this happen to him. If he has any sense he will latch on to a senior NCO as a mentor and filter his ideas through that person, and keep his mouth shut in meetings.

Mary and Lyssa, thanks for your comments. I agree with what you both say.

Maybe/likely I don't get enough exposure to the kind of stereotypical man-whining you describe, but I do have to wonder whether it's as prevalent as you think. The men I know are mostly somewhat beaten by their perceived need to give women's plight extra attention.

I think there's truth in what bagoh20 said: "Men just naturally take shit, it's what we do." We're new to this victim game. But don't give us time; please point out the idiocy of it, as you just did.

By the way, I love it when what we used to call waitresses call me "hon" or "sweetie" or some such. When a redhead does it, my IQ drops 15 points. My wife says "sweetie"...but not to me, alas.

What scares me most about this educational theory of same-sex classrooms? As a girl, getting stuck in a 'girls classroom', where we all collaborate, don't compete, and learn groupie group "softer" ways of thinking, not doing...

That's not me. THey'd better have some kind of "opt out" mixed classrooms for the kids who don't fit those molds, is all I'm saying...

Well, you twits, especially the female 20-somethings, voted for him because they didn't want to be scorned by the cool dateable age guys by voting for the "unfuckable" mother-in-law type woman. Or, God Forbid, that fuckable woman from the unfuckable Daddy Issues party who everyone seemed to agree during the election deserved to be raped.

On various online communities when I don't make it obvious either through my screenname or my content, I have been often taken for male.

My serious opinions are indeed more valued and discussed more seriously among men and women, however, I feel an unspoken constraint not to ever talk about anything personal or risk be taken as gay at which point my opinions won't exactly be rudely dismissed, but would be considered outlier by the straight guys.

If I showed any female understanding at all, the women (who also thought I was a guy) would start to flirt with me. On one forum it got so bad I had to resub under an obviously female screenname and start all over again building the relationships.

As a female was free to engage in personal talk, but at the expense of the more substantial opinions I posed being mostly ignored or often being fought publicly whereas as a guy I was accepted by the smart/cool guys immediately. OTOH, I'd gain *fans* among the male population and the females that had formerly flirted with me were now resentful.

Very interesting. I recommend it to anyone who finds an online group in which they are interested in heavily but only temporarily participating.

My favorite was a smart, creative guy that treated me well under both screennames. I'm telling you, if we had been unattached, there'd have been big romantic trouble. ;-) Great suitor test.

Thanks, Bob Ellison- BTW, I should add that I'm only talking about the really hardcore bitter men's rights internet sites (and not about anyone I think I've ever met in real life) (and I don't think it's wrong to say that most of the most bitter men actually have been screwed over a bit). The commenters at Dr. Helen's site are probably the worst offenders that I can think of (though not all of them- I know that there are some common commenters between Dr. H and Althouse, and I've never noticed them to be as particularly over the top as some of Dr. D's regulars.)

I had that happen to me regularly back in the day. When my boss would say no to an idea, I'd go to his next in command, lay out the idea in detail and he would present it and get approval. I didn't take it personally, I just thought it was because I was most junior.

Basically I ignored it until other people started pointing out when it happened.

There was the time I had a boss who didn't believe the answers I was giving him on an issue, so he had an office mate in a related field call around the country to find out who the expert was on the subject. I heard about it because one of the men he called immediately called me to find out if I knew the guy. He'd told them I was the go-to person on the issue and thought it odd they didn't know me.

On various online communities when I don't make it obvious either through my screenname or my content, I have been often taken for male

The same thing happens all the time in on line gaming MMORPGs.

You can choose a female or male avatar. As a female, I found that by choosing the male avatar, I was more able to get into groups/raids and be accepted for the level of my playing skills.

The female avatars were rarely chosen or subjected to back seat roles. In addition, you would often get the unwanted flirting. "Seriously? You are coming on to my cartoon character?!?" It was very strange to be subject to prejudice based on what your online character looks like.

Once I have established myself in the guild or social group as a player, I may...or may... not reveal my self as female IRL.

Yes, but despite what you said after that, DBQ, you're not going to get on a good raid team or into a good guild without Vent or TS. Then the game's up.

Frankly, of the guilds/clans I've joined over the years, I am far, far, far more put off, to the point of insulted, when I hear the squeak of a tween or a young teen. Nothing says, "WASTE OF TIME" like hearing that in your earphones.

DBQ, you're not going to get on a good raid team or into a good guild without Vent or TS. Then the game's up.

True, but by the time you have built a good relationship with the guild, done some runs and proven yourself and are ready to raid, it doesn't matter. The surprise factor when you are on Vent, from those who don't know your gender is pretty much fun.

Generally it isn't that much of a big deal, since most of the other players that I hook up with are more mature, working, in the military or serious and don't care about your gender. If it is a big deal /gquit

This woman's post is misguided on so many levels, I could write for an hour and not repeat myself. Here's a couple.

1. Group communication dynamics is an Art. It takes lots of practice, and you have to learn from the masters. She needs to recruit mentors. They do not teach it in college, credentials mean nothing, and references to credentials stifles communication. She needs a program of self-study and practice on Supporting and Leading Effective Group Communication. Whole books can be written on this.

2. She has been ill-served by the Academy damfools who taught her all this victimology crap. Nobody considers ideas from a known flopper (as in soccer) or a whiner. Quit yer whinin', get in there and start shovelin' like Lucas Jackson on paving day.

3. Ideas tossed out during the brain-storming phase of a meeting are owned by nobody, and you get no chits for being the spewer. Later on, when the brainstorm list is being winnowed, you have to be seen fairly evaluating all ideas. Once you're seen as favoring your idea over another because it's yours, your GCD reputation is toast.